SQ_Crazies wrote:
I hate people who read too far into things.
Is there anything more annoying in college than the guy that does that vocally in class and never shuts up?
I couldn't agree more... and like you mentioned, it's even more annoying when you're the teacher.
Question 2 asked, "After reviewing the case, would you select a guilty or not guilty verdict for Ms. Jane Doe in the murder of Mr. Smith?". Like I said, I've been on the jury of a murder trial. The seriousness of the experience is incredible.
Though some might say it's annoying, I would have to say, "Not guilty", precisely because there was not enough evidence in devil's synopsis. As far as I can tell, the case scenario presented by devils is only hearsay and did not come close to proving guilt.
If the case is explored in it's simplest of terms that it is a proven fact that Ms. Jane Doe shot and killed Mr. Smith and nothing else matters, then why muddy the case mentioning the race of the perp and victim and why even bring up the verbal exchanges between them?
If however, the race of the perp and victim are important to the case, as well as the facts that they had non-specific verbal exchanges and the perp has a history of alcohol probllems, then why is it annoying to ask if there is other information about the case before determining a sentence?
I see the survey as nothing more than determining what the penalty should be for a crime committed by someone who was offended by what someone else said. We are not afforded the information if what was said was racially motivated or if a hate crime was committed.
It could almost be determined by the case study given that the perp did not heed the age-old childhood saying, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me"... especially if alcohol is being consumed.
